Women Artists to Victims of War

Home , Art colony, Ivan Kliun, Peredvizhniki, Walking Artists Network

Artl@s Bulletin Volume 8 Issue 1 Women Artists Shows.Salons.Societies Article 7 (1870s-1970s)

2019 "Women Artists to Victims of War" - the First Exhibition of the Moscow Union of Women Painters and its Reception by the Contemporary Press. Natalia Y. Budanova CCRAC, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/artlas Part of the Fine Arts Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Budanova, Natalia Y.. ""Women Artists to Victims of War" - the First Exhibition of the Moscow Union of Women Painters and its Reception by the Contemporary Press.." Artl@s Bulletin 8, no. 1 (2019): Article 7.

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information.

This is an Open Access journal. This means that it uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. This journal is covered under the CC BY-NC-ND license. "Women Artists to Victims of War" - the First Exhibition of the Moscow Union of Women Painters and its Reception by the Contemporary Press.

Cover Page Footnote This essay is an extended version of the paper the author presented at the symposium "WAS(Women Artists Shows-Salons-Societies) organised by the research laboratory Artl@s École normale supérieure, PSL, Labex TransferS) and by AWARE, with the collaboration of Jeu de Paume in December 2017. The uthora also would like to express her gratitude to Z. P. Shergina, Director and other members of the stuff of the rT etyakov Library, Moscow for their support in locating primary sources for this research project.

This article is available in Artl@s Bulletin: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/artlas/vol8/iss1/7

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s)

Women Artists to Victims of War – The First Exhibition of the Moscow Union of Women Painters and its Reception by the Contemporary Press

Natalia Budanova * Cambridge Courtauld Russian Art Centre (CCRAC, UK) Abstract A few surviving visual and documentary sources related to the exhibition Women Artists to Victims of War organised by the Moscow Union of Women Painters in winter 1914 represent a useful primary material for piecing together fragments of the history of this short-lived female art group. The Union exemplified impressive gender changes in educational and professional spheres of Russian art. Yet, it failed to attract strong member- ship and disintegrated a few years after its institution. By analysing available evidence, this essay seeks to uncover and assess the causes of the Union’s defeat in establishing a prominent public profile.

Résumé Les quelques éléments visuels et documentaires qui subsistent à propos de l’exposition Women Artists to Victims of War, organisée par l’Union moscovite des femmes peintres à l’automne 1914, représentent une source primaire de documentation utile pour recons- tituer les fragments de l’histoire de ce groupe artistique féminin éphémère. L’Union at- teste les changements importants concernant les questions de genre au sein des sphères professionnelles et académiques de l’art russe. Cependant, elle a échoué à susciter une forte adhésion et fut dissoute quelques années seulement après son institution. En analy- sant les témoignages disponibles, cet essai s’attache à mettre au jour et à évaluer les causes de l’échec de l’Union à établir sa légitimité auprès du public.

* Dr Natalia Budanova, MA (Cambs), MA (Courtauld), PhD (Courtauld) is a UK-based independent art historian and a member of CCRAC (Cambridge Courtauld Russian Art Centre) advisory board. Her research and publications engage in investigating the role of women in Russian art of the late Impe- rial and early Soviet periods, patterns of artistic exchange between Russia and the West, and the art of the Great War.

108 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

Introduction introducing and analysing primary documentary and visual material concerning the society’s first On 5 January 1915 the Moscow-based newspaper exhibition, Women Artists to Victims of War, which Russkie Vedomosti (Russian Journal) informed its the author discovered in the Library of the State readers that the Moscow Union of Women Painters, Tretiakov Gallery in Moscow and until now has a recently established art society, opened its first remained largely disregarded. In doing so it also exhibition, entitled Women Artists to Victims of War. endeavours to evaluate the story of the Moscow According to the article’s anonymous author, the Union of Women Painters in relation to gender- Moscow Union of Women Painters was set up in sensitive attitudes at work in the Russian art world Moscow in May 1914 by the constituent assembly, of the late Imperial period. although its first general meeting had not taken place until October 1914.1 This piece of news remains one of the few known direct references to The Predecessors the Union and its activities. The Moscow Union of Women Painters was not the No file containing constitutional or any other first female art organisation to be founded in Russia documents related to the Moscow Union of Women as it was preceded by two other societies, both Painters has yet been discovered in archives or based in St Petersburg, then the capital of Russian elsewhere. Therefore, piecing together coherent Empire. The oldest, called the First Ladies’ Art chronicle of the group represents a considerable Circle (Pervyi damskii khudozhestvennyi kruzhok), challenge. In point of fact, the Moscow Union of was set up by a group of aristocratic women in Women Painters has been very rarely, if ever, February 1882 and aimed at “artistic development mentioned in modern art historical literature in in general, while also offering assistance to needy Russia or abroad. The only available account is a artists and their families.”3 The main drawing force short entry in the book The Golden Age of Art Unions in establishing the Ladies’ Art Circle was its first in Russia and the USSR (1820-1932), published in Chairwoman Pelageia Kuriar (1848-1898), a Russia in 1992.2 According to this authoritative landscape painter of noble background, who was a survey, the Union accepted both professional regular participant in the Imperial Academy’s and amateur women artists, numbering 36 full annual exhibitions and held the title of the members by 1915. The same year it set up a Academy’s honorary associate. studio, which ran art classes twice a week. It also organised a series of lectures on art history and The Ladies’ Circle acted under the patronage of the held family evening parties each Friday. Regret- Imperial Family, and the majority of its members tably, the only historical source of reference, were women of St Petersburg’s high-society, whose provided by the authors of the book, Dmitrii artistic skills and tastes were cultivated as an inte- Severiukhin and Oleg Leikind, was the above- gral part of a gentlewoman’s proper upbringing. mentioned article in Russkie Vedomosti, wherefore The Circle held weekly meetings with painting and it remains unclear where the factual information drawing classes under the supervision of promi- came from. nent male professional painters. It also organised annual exhibitions, usually at Easter time, inviting This essay aims to extend art historical knowledge up to 100 contributors to take part. Five percent about the Moscow Union of Women Painters by of all exhibition proceeds were donated to the

Note on translation and transliteration. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine. The transliteration of Russian names and words observes the form used by 1 Anon., ‘Zhenskaia vystavka’ (Women’s exhibition), Russkie vedomosti (Russian the Library of Congress. However, the spelling of some famous names follows long- Journal), 5 January 1915 (#4). established tradition—for example, Mayakosky (not Maiakovskii), Olga (not Ol’ga), 2 Dmitrii Severiukhin, Oleg Leikind, Zolotoi vek khudozhestvennykh ob”edinenii v Rossii and Tretyakov (not Treti’akov) Gallery. Surnames of foreign origin are transliterated i SSSR (1820–1932) (The Golden Age of Art Unions in Russia and the USSR, (1820-1932)) here on the bases of their Russian form, including Aleksandr Benua (not Alexander (St Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Chernisheva, 1992), 132. Benois), Princess Evgeniia Ol’denburgskaia (not Eugenia of Oldenburg), Emilia Shanks 3 Statute of the First Ladies’ Art Circle, 2 March 1884. (not Emily Shanks), and the Lemers’e Gallery (not the Lemercier Gallery).

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s) 109 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

society’s charitable fund. The participation in these Imperial patronage, did nothing to sooth the exhibitions was not limited to only amateur traditionally vexed question of women as valid art women painters and members of the circle. Some creators. If anything it ultimately served to add prominent professional artists—men as well as further controversy to the problem. While reports women—were also invited to contribute their of its annual exhibitions were duly released in the works. Among the affirmed women painters who contemporary press, the amateurish quality of regularly participated in the Circle’s annual works produced by the Circle’s fellow members exhibitions, to name just a few, were Elizaveta Bem was often sharply criticised by art professionals, (1843-1914)—a painter and prolific illustrator thus reinforcing prejudices against the “lady artist” of children’s books; Elena Samokish-Sudkovskaia as an idle wealthy woman engaging with visual arts (1863-1924)—a successful illustrator and poster for the own amusement. For instance, Aleksandr artist; and Princess Maria Tenisheva (1858-1928) Benua (1870-1960), a prominent artist, art critic —an enamel artist, patron, educator and art and founding member of World of Art Group, collector. The Circle’s exhibitions also featured reviewing the Circle annual exhibition of 1909, works by such well-known male artists as Vasilii mercilessly attacked the works of its members Vereshchiagin (1842-1904)—an acclaimed battle labelling them “a mockery, an affront to the sacred painter; Lev Lagorio (1827-1905)—a landscape shrine of art.” He ended his assessment with the artist; and Il’ia Repin (1844-1930)—the most cele- following appeal: brated Russian realist painter of the time. Art is not a joke. It is not a high society game; it is a The circle’s practice of inviting distinguished very serious […] job. Art can be sometimes playful, male artists to take part in the society’s exhibitions but it is never a toy […]. Stop amusing yourself with would be replicated by the Moscow Union of your self-deception; stop confusing and obfuscating very significant concepts. Art is one thing; your Women Painters, as we shall see. However, the First exercises are quite something else.4 Ladies’ Art Circle, which formally was the first women-founded and women-managed association Although Benua made it clear that his diatribe in the field of Russian fine arts, was above all a was directed exclusively at the non-professional charitable organisation and not a proper art group. women for whom the making of art was only a Essentially, its initiatives were an extension of a hobby, the general tone of his article suggested well-established social practice, promoting the that the author considered the true and great art close involvement of the women of upper-classes as essentially a male domain—a belief shared by with philanthropy and patronage of visual arts. The many professional artists of the time. In his closing Circle’s activities, solidly based on the traditional paragraph Benua implored: view on femininity, did not challenge established Dearest ladies […], if you like to make something gender order of the time. The Circle never useful do not exceed your capacities, be modest. It is harboured any feminist aspirations and certainly much better for you to serve the real creators than had no ambition to promote the professional art to mimic creativity. Embroider, chisel or cut out careers of its members or of any other women what the real master will draw for you; obey him artists at that. A case in point is that a number of meekly and do not assume that you are able to judge artistic matters exclusively on the ground that you scholarships in professional art training the Circle are enrolled in an art circle.5 set up were, according to the statute, allocated to artists’ sons, with no mention of daughters. Ten years after the establishment of First Ladies’ Art Circle in 1892 another women-led art The relative prominence of the Ladies’ Circle, owing enterprise called the St Petersburg Society for to the high social profile of its members and its the Encouragement of Female Arts and Crafts

4 Aleksandr Benua, “Exhibition of the Ladies’ circle”, Rech (Speech), 2 December 1909 5 Ibid. (#340).

ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019) 110 W.A.S. (1870s-1970s)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

(St-Peterburgskoe Obshchestvo Pooshchreniia with female creativity than with female labour. Zhenskogo Khudozhestvenno-remeslennogo Truda) The Society soon became an integral part of was set up in the capital of Russian Empire. Once the government system and was subsidised by again the initiative came from a group of society the Commercial and Manufacturing Department ladies, some of whom were also members of the of the Ministry of Finance. A member of the First Ladies’ Art Circle. This time, however, the Imperial Romanov family—Princess Evgenia creation of a new society was inspired specifically Ol’denburgskaia (1845-1925)—a keen philan- by the ideas of women’s economic and social thropist and the President of the Imperial Society emancipation as it aimed to secure proper training for the Encouragement of Arts—acted as the and occupation in applied arts for women of Society’s patron. All in all, this organisation did unprivileged classes. The Society’s first Chair- not challenge the preconceived knowledge of a woman was Maria Argamakova (1840s-after conflict between creating art and femininity, and 1901), Head of St Petersburg Practical School of its activities appeared perfectly agreeable in the Female Handicrafts. The Society contained about eyes of the political and artistic establishment. 160 members, all of them women, and represented Evidence suggests that the Moscow Union of an important platform for the popularisation and Women Painters aimed at a very different target. market promotion of female arts and crafts

industries, bringing together arts and crafts supporters, practitioners and commercial distrib- The Moscow Union of Women Painters: utors. The majority of its full members or fellows Facts and Conjectures (deistvitel’nye chleny) were upper-class ladies- patrons. The Society also encompassed affiliated The Moscow Union of Women Painters was laun- members (chleny-sotrudniki), who were crafts- ched a couple of decades later, and compared to the women directly engaged in arts and crafts making, two older societies it operated in a historical period and member-promoters (chleny-sorevnovateli) when gender balance within the Russian art world who were owners of female arts and crafts was noticeably changing. One of the major reasons workshops, heads of schools of female applied for these changes was the introduction of some art education, professional artists, and so on. In its important women-friendly policies in the field of annual exhibitions the Society put on display art education, including the decision of the Imperial various kinds of applied art produced by its Academy of Fine Arts in St Petersburg to abolish affiliated members such as hand-painted porcelain all restrictions against the admission of female ware, decorations on wood and silk, pokerwork, students in 1891. In doing so the Academy became embroidery, etc. The same exhibitions also featured one of the first major art institutions in Europe to works by women who were not members of the accept women students on the same conditions as 6 Society. Those invited participants comprised both men. affirmed professionals and some members of the Before 1891 women were allowed to attend classes First Ladies’ Circle. at the Academy as auditors only, while their The founding of the St Petersburg Society for the participation in the Academy’s annual exhibitions Encouragement of Female Arts and Crafts repre- was limited to the categories of portrait, landscape, sented an important step forward in promoting still-life and genre painting. In the best of the female professionalisation in the arts. However, it scenarios, women could aspire to receive the title of was enclosed within strict boundaries of applied second-class artist, which gave them the right to arts—a branch of art traditionally associated less teach art at schools, but did not gave them the

6 In France, women gained full admission to the École des Beaux-Arts in 1897, while in Britain, female students’ access to professional training was subject to special regulations until 1893.

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s) 111 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

status of a true creator of art. There also existed a economic independence enjoyed by women from few drawing and handicrafts schools, established middle and upper classes also secured their outside the Imperial Academy of Fine Arts, which effective engagement with private art education, offered women art training and the opportunity to art patronage and art business. As a matter of fact, engage professionally with applied arts or to the first private art school in the Russian Empire become drawing teachers. One of the most popular was founded in 1869 in Kharkov by a woman artist, art institutions of this kind was the School of the Maria Raevskaia-Ivanova (1840-1912). Soon after Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts in there appeared other popular private art schools St Petersburg. and studios run by women. Some of the most acclaimed included the Tenisheva School in After women were granted full admission to the St Petersburg (1895-1903) founded by the already Imperial Academy, they became eligible for the title mentioned Princess Maria Tenisheva, as well as two of first-class artist, which gave them an equal schools established by Elizaveta Zvantzeva (1864- professional standing with men and the oppor- 1921), a former student of Repin at the Imperial tunity to receive Academy-funded training abroad. Academy of Fine Arts in St Petersburg: the first For instance, Elena Kisileva (1878-1974), who was opened in Moscow in 1899 and another one studied art in the Academy under the tutorship of opened in St Petersburg in 1906. Professional staff Il’ia Repin, won the Academy scholarship to further of Tenisheva’s and Zvantseva’s schools boasted improve her art education abroad after her some of the best painters of the time including Il’ia graduation in 1907. It allowed her to live in Paris Repin, Valentin Serov (1865-1911), Konstantin for two years from 1908 to 1910 and to attend Korovin (1861-1939), Leon Bakst (1866-1924), classes in the Académie Julian. Kuz’ma Petrov-Vodkin (1878-1939) and Mstislav In addition to the Academy, other educational Dobuzhinskii (1875-1957). options became available for women aspiring to Women were also at the helm of the revival of forge a career in the field of art. These ranged from national arts and crafts, acting as sponsors, state-sponsored high art schools, of which the most organisers, artists and managers. Elizaveta prestigious rival of the Academy was the Moscow Mamontova (1847-1908), wife of the wealthy School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, to industrialist Savva Mamontov, was one of the first a network of private studios in both capitals and to establish an art-furniture workshop for peasant other big provincial cities. Many female art students boys at their Abramtsevo’s estate in 1876, em- also travelled to Paris, Munich and Rome to study ploying the artist Elena Polenova (1850-1898) as at internationally acknowledged art schools and its artistic director. In 1893 Princess Maria experience the newest art trends first-hand. Tenisheva founded the Talashkino art colony near According to Wendy Salmond “most women artists Smolensk, which soon became an important centre in this period moved frequently between private of Russian Arts and Crafts activities. Sofia Davydova studios and public schools, from the provinces to (1842-1915) pioneered the in-depth study of the capitals, and from Russia to Europe and back Russian lace making and opened the Maryinskii again”.7 As a consequence, in the first decades of the Lace School in St Petersburg in 1883. These were 20th century a steadily growing number of young not isolated cases, as many other enterprising women started to engage with the visual arts on a women got engaged in much the same activities. professional level. Finally, the two most prominent and dynamic In the pre-revolutionary decades, the female private art galleries of Russia were also women-led. presence in Russian art world extended well Nadezhda Dobychina (1884-1949), wife of a beyond the profession of artist. The considerable

7 Wendy Salmond, “Russia”, in Delia Gaze, ed., Dictionary of Women Artists, vol.1 (London and Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997), 119.

ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019) 112 W.A.S. (1870s-1970s)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

merchant and a businesswoman in her own right, established facts. It is, however, clear that the Union opened her Art Bureau in St Petersburg in 1911, differed from the two older female organisations in while the artist Klavdia Mikhailova (1875-1942) at least two significant aspects. Firstly, it was not a established her Art Salon in Moscow in 1912. Both charity, but a proper art group, which sought to places remained among the major exhibition spaces bring together women artists of different social in the Russian Empire for the next six years when backgrounds with the view to facilitate their the drastic change in Russian socio-political life professional advancement and public recognition following the October Revolution of 1917 put through its activities, including exhibitions. In this an end to their art businesses. This impressive respect, the Moscow Union of Women Painters female presence in Russian visual arts in the first sharply contrasted with the elitist First Ladies’ decades of the 20th century has been effectively Circle, for whom an engagement with art, summarised by Szymon Bojko: “nowhere else did disconnected from any career preoccupations, such startling women personalities appear in such represented first of all a charity and a hobby. numbers and to such effect. Here was a veritable Secondly, unlike both the Ladies’ Circle and the eruption of talent, producing great minds, beautiful St Petersburg Society for the Encouragement of personalities, beacons dispelling the gloom of an Female Arts and Crafts, the Moscow Union of autocratic age.”8 Women Painters was an independent civil establishment, which sought neither connections to Despite the growing number of professional female nor the approval of any state power structures. artists, no attempt had been made to bring together Instead, by aiming at affirmation of female creative these practitioners in a special female art group and professional self-worth, the group was ulti- before the creation of the Moscow Union of Women mately undermining the dominant gender order. Painters in the spring 1914. The question as to why the new group emerged at the time when women The formal inauguration of the group on 8 May were already accepted as full members in the 1914 went virtually unnoticed by the wider Russian existing art societies remains an art historical audience, and no announcement appeared in the puzzle. Given that there was no need to campaign press of the day. The public became aware of the for gender-related institutional changes, one of the group’s existence only in late December 1914-early plausible reasons behind such an initiative might January 1915 on the occasion of the group’s first have been eagerness to further improve the exhibition, Women Artists to Victims of War, when a visibility and status of professional women artists number of short reviews of the event were by displaying their aptitude for true artistic published in the newspapers. The responses of creativity and thus putting an end to the contemporary commentators as well as the patronising belief that female art was inferior and catalogue of the exhibition and its advertising second-rate in comparison with art made by men. poster constitute the major primary material, The analysis of the critical responses to the Union’s elucidating some important points about the group first exhibition, which will follow shortly, will allow and its policies. us to get the measure of how successful the society

was in achieving this goal. The Union’s First Exhibition The scarcity of primary source material regarding the Moscow Union makes it difficult to reconstruct The exhibition Women Artists to Victims of War took its actual policies with due accuracy, therefore place in the special historical moment, that is just a some of the arguments, put forward in this essay few months after Russia entered the Great War in should be accepted more as conjectures than as August 1914. At first, it seemed that wartime

8 Szymon Bojko, “Those Women” in Women Artists of the Russian Avant-garde 1910- 1930, exhibition catalogue (Cologne: Galerie Gmurzynska, 1980), 21.

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s) 113 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

economics and dramatic changes in everyday life a new art society and, secondly, to establish a should have brought on ‘the winter of the arts’. favourable public profile. This strategy, however, “Everything was mixed up, broken and was not without flaws. The irony was that the overwhelmed by one aim, one idea—the idea of Union, which was conceived as a proper art group war,”—thus Ivan Kliun, an avant-garde artist and a and not as a philanthropic enterprise, had to fall supporter of Kazimir Malevich, wrote in his back on the format of charitable exhibition memoirs remembering the first months of the war.9 stereotypically associated with the activities of However, despite the dramatic historical backdrop, society ladies. In this situation, the Union had to Russian art life continued its course, even becoming strike the right balance between the display of in some ways more intense. In particular, the patriotic loyalty and the promotion of women as number of art exhibitions, many of which were art creators. connected to wartime charitable initiatives, was The problematics of this dual purpose are dis- rapidly growing. cernible in the exhibition’s black-and-white In the first year of the war this upsurge in exhibition advertising poster, produced by Evgeniia Zaidner, activity was in large part stimulated by a rise of an artist whose personal and professional patriotic sentiment, which many artists endorsed. biography remains obscure. The fact that Zaidner Their participation in exhibitions, of which part of designed the first exhibition’s poster suggests that the revenues were donated to support wounded she might have played a prominent role in the soldiers and victims of war, became a means to join Union’s activities. In her design the artist national public mobilisation. At the same time, the emphasised the exhibition’s title—Women Artists exhibitions for the war effort created a special to Victims of War—making it conspicuously larger opportunity for marginalised artists. Due to than the rest of the text (Fig.1). It is, however, generally more relaxed and democratic selection important to note that within this visual block policy of such fundraising events in comparison the gender allegiance of the event was given with regular group shows, works by lesser known special prominence. The word Khudozhnitsi— or controversial painters were now more likely to “Women artists”—was in fact slightly bigger in be displayed side by side with renowned masters. size than the rest of the title, and its white letters Hence charity-connected exhibitions proved to be a visibly stand out on their black background. The suitable occasion for emerging artists to reach symbolism of the Greek goddess Athena, whose wider audiences and attract the attention of art seated figure featured in the poster, might also critics. This rule was not limited to individual be invested with the same singular combination artists only. Joining the patriotic national cause also of wartime patriotic fervour and gender preoccu- enhanced chances of the press and public attending pations. The high helmet and round shield on which events put together by new and unfamiliar art she rests her right hand pointed to Athena’s role as societies. the goddess of war strategy and, by implication, connected the female gender with heroic There is no doubt that the Moscow Union of endeavours. Athena was, of course, also the Women Painters sincerely embraced wartime goddess of wisdom and craft. Therefore, by putting public mobilisation, thus deciding to commit their her figure on the exhibition’s poster Zaidner might first exhibition to fundraising for victims of war. have aimed at asserting women’s right to the noble Yet, the patriotic underpinning of this event might qualities of heroism, intellect and craftsmanship have given it an extra incentive to achieve at least traditionally considered to belong to the male two other important goals: firstly, to reach out to gender. the potential audience, announcing the arrival of

9 Ivan Kliun, Moi put’ v iskusstve (My path in art) (Moscow: RA, 1999), 87. Ivan Kliun Kazimir Malevich (1879-1935)—one of the leading figures of the Russian early avant- (real name Ivan Kliun’kov) (1873-1943)—a painter, graphic artist and sculptor. garde, inventor of Suprematism.

ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019) 114 W.A.S. (1870s-1970s)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

Figure 1. Ekaterina Zaidner, poster for the exhibition Women artists to victims of war, 1914, 47 × 61 cm, chromolithography on paper, Tipografia Russkogo obshchestva pechati i izdatel’skogo dela. Private collection, Moscow.

The Union’s logo adorning the title page of the examination of the catalogue of its first exhibition catalogue for the exhibition Women Artists to reveals a more complex picture. Victims of War is also rich in allegorical references The display included 370 works by 62 participants, (Fig. 2 and 2a).10 Made by an unknown artist, it who, despite the explicit declaration of the exhibit- represents a classically draped upright female tion’s title, were not exclusively women. In this figure with a burning torch standing on a plinth aspect, the Moscow Union of Women Painters inscribed with the Union’s acronym and the year of followed the practice of the two earlier women-led foundation: 19-M.O.X.-14. The message implied by organisations from St Petersburg, which, as we this image is not difficult to grasp, as it clearly know, also kept the custom of welcoming men in asserts the group’s female-orientated member- their major exhibitions. The comparative number ship and its ambition to keep the sacred light of of male and female participants in the exhibition artistic inspiration high. The logo’s neo-classical Women Artists to Victims of War was a mirror style seems to vouch for a rather conventional image of the standard gender proportion of other artistic orientation of the group, yet a close

10 A copy of the catalogue for the exhibition Women Artists to Victims of War is now preserved in the collection of the Tretyakov Gallery library.

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s) 115 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

contemporary art exhibitions, where the number of from realism (Iakov Bashilov (1882-1940); women typically stood at 15 to 20 percent.11 Mikhail Shemiakin (1875-1955)) and symbolism (Veniamin Gal’vich (?-?); Vasilii Denisov (1862-

1922)) to moderate modernism (Eksan Kron (1882-1959); Mikhail Leblan (1875-1940)). The exhibition also included experimental avant-garde paintings by Kazimir Malevich (1879-1935), the future creator of Suprematism. Still a relatively unknown artist, he was desperately seeking ways to exhibit his works. “I was kicked away from three exhibitions […], and only darling Moscow women gave me shelter in their society,” reported Malevich (with a pinch of cynic humour) to his close associate, the avant-garde painter and musician Mikhail Matiushin.12 It seems obvious that each of the participating men had his own reason for taking part in the event. While Pasternak and Mashkov might have been attracted by the exhibition’s charitable purpose, Malevich jointed the initiative out of desperation.

Figure 2. Title page of the exhibition catalogue, Women Artists to Victims of War, 1914. Library of the State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

Two out of the fifteen men who took part in the Union’s first exhibition had especially solid professional profiles. They were Leonid Pasternak (1862-1945), an affirmed post-impressionist painter and a professor of the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, and his ex-student, Ilia Mashkov (1881-1944), a founding member of the Figure 2a. Logo of the Moscow Union of Women Artists. modernist art group Jack of Diamond. The aesthetic orientations of the other male contributors ranged

11 Avant-garde events represented the only exclusion from this gender misbalance. Vospominaiia. Kritika. (Malevich about Himself. Contemporaries about Malevich: Their exhibitions, where the number of participating men and women was often equal, Letters. Documents. Memoirs. Reviews), Irina Vakar, Tat’ana Mikhienko eds, vol. 1 were significantly more egalitarian. (Moscow: RA, 2004), 64. Mikhail Matiushin (1861-1934)—one of the prominent 12 Kazimir Malevich, “Letter to M. Matiushin”, early January 1915, from Moscow to figures in the Russian early avant-garde. Petrograd. Malevich o sebe. Sovremenninki o Maleviche. Pis’ma. Dokumenty.

ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019) 116 W.A.S. (1870s-1970s)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

Analysis of female contributors’ professional Architecture; S. Sukhovetskaia-Ispolatova (1875-?) biographies reveals the same diversity in their —a realist painter and participant of some of the professional status, stylistic orientation and Peredvizhniki exhibitions; Elizaveta Grudistova possible motives for participation. In terms of (1864-1932)—an artist of moderate modernist modern art history the most celebrated participant inclination, influenced by contemporary French was Olga Rozanova (1886-1918), a daring and painting; Iulia Kron (1882-1956)—a member of inventive avant-garde artist associated with the Jack of Diamonds group and wife of Eksan Russian Cubo-Futurists and later Suprematist Kron, who also contributed to the exhibition; circles. However, in December 1914 she (much like and Bronislava Korvin-Kamenskaia (?-1945)—an Malevich, her close associate) was struggling to emerging avant-garde artist involved with the establish her career. The Union’s exhibition was Russian Cubo-Futurists. But the majority of the for her a rare chance to show her work. A few female participants now remain completely ob- women with well-established contemporary scure. Apparently, being at the start of their reputations included Emilia Shanks (1857-1936)— professional path in 1914, they did not manage a realist genre and landscape artist of British to build a distinguished career in visual arts. The descent and the first woman to be accepted as a Union’s exhibition, without doubt, gave them a full-member into the influential Association of the good opportunity to attract public attention. Travelling Exhibitions (Peredvizhniki); Elizaveta Little is known about the selection policy adopted Krasnushkina (1858-after 1914)—a prominent by the exhibition’s organizers. The only contem- printmaker of realist style, who received her art porary source containing a few short bits of training at the Imperial Academy in St Petersburg information on the subject are two letters from and from 1894 lived mostly in Rome, without, Malevich to Matiushin, one of which has been however, losing contact with Russian art circles; mentioned above. In that same letter Malevich also Roza Riuss (?-?), who in 1912 had a joint exhi- let Matiushin know that the organisers, who bition with Vasilii Denisov, a symbolist artist of accepted his unconventional works, later regretted distinction and one of the male contributors of their decision, but “it was too late”.13 In the earlier the exhibition Women Artists to Victims of War; letter sent to Matiushin on 28 November, a month Ekaterina Gol’dinger (1881-1973)—a prolific Post- before the opening of the exhibition, Malevich Impressionist portraitist, landscape and genre invited his friend to “send 3-4 small-scale painter as well as a book illustrator, who studied sculptures”, being, apparently, confident that art under the tutorship of the above mentioned Matiushin’s pieces would be received by the Leonid Pasternak; and Elena Villiam (1860-1919) organisers favourably.14 These details point to a —a versatile watercolour and pastel artist, who rather relaxed selection policy which eventually specialised in landscapes and portraits. Villiam resulted in a wide stylistic diversity of the display. put on display as many as 30 works—sketches, At the same time, Malevich’s remark about the portraits and landscapes. Less prominent, but organisers being in the end displeased with his fairly established participants included Rimma works—he exhibited five deliberately provocative Brailovskaia (1877-1959)—a graphic and applied paintings—suggests that the women in charge with artist of the Art Nouveau style; Nadezhda the Union and its activities did not approve of Budkovskaia-Kibal’chich (1874-1952)—a land- cutting-edge artistic experimentations.15 scape and still-life artist, who graduated from the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and In the same letter dating from November, Malevich also communicated that “the venue has been

13 Malevich to Matiushin. Malevich o sebe., vol. 1, 64. 15 According to the exhibition catalogue Malevich’s display included: What mind does 14 Kazimir Malevich, “Letter to M. Matiushin”, 28 November 1914, from Moscow to not comprehend (230); What mind does comprehend (231); Peasant woman carrying Petrograd. Malevich o sebe., vol. 1, 62. Matiushin did not participate in the exhibition. buckets (232); Servant with a samovar (233); and Aviator (234). Peasant woman The reasons for this decision are unknown. carrying buckets (1912) is now in the collection of the MoMA, New-York; Aviator (c. 1914) belongs to the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s) 117 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

already rented. It is an apartment; therefore, the rented by the Union was located in a very number of paintings and sculptures is rather respectable and affluent central area of the city in limited.”16 This excerpt sheds light on other parti- close proximity to a Tverskoi Boulevard and culars concerning the group. In all evidence by the Tverskaia Street. The author goes on to say, with- end of 1914 the Moscow Union of Women Painters out mentioning any names, that the display did not have premises of its own, nor had it access included few works by men who had been invited to any other suitably equipped exhibition space in to take part. Only the closing line, which reads Moscow. As a consequence, the organisers had to “The quality of the men’s and ladies’ pieces is very deal with an area which was not specifically mediocre,” suggests a veiled gender bias. Instead of designed to host an extended art display. This far- neutral “women’s” or “female’s” (zhenskie) works from-ideal arrangement was fraught with serious (which would perfectly agree with the language problems from the start. It must have restricted the of the time) the anonymous reviewer used the choice of works to medium and small formats (this phrase “ladies’ (damskie) works”. This deliberate is indirectly confirmed by Malevich’s advice to or involuntary slip of tongue evoked the negative Matiushin to send “small-scale sculptures”); the association with dilettantism and inferior quality apartment’s windows were unlikely to provide of amateur art produced by upper class women, adequate lighting; the works would have been very especially considering that the same adjective close to each other; the venue’s layout might have damskii featured in the name of the First Ladies’ Art hindered the smooth flow of the visitors. Any of Circle (Pervii Damskii Khudozhestvennii Kruzhok).17 these issues was potentially detrimental enough to It signalled that the condescending view on female compromise the overall impression of the event. art was not at all extinct.

The article in Russkie Vedomosti (Russian Journal) supplied a more extensive account, which opened The Reaction of the Press with the already quoted passage about the Despite Women Artists to Victims of War exhibition establishment of the Moscow Union of Women lasting for a month from 26 December 1914 to Painters in spring 1914. This reviewer obviously 26 January 1915, it solicited only a very limited strived to present a balanced assessment, opening number of reviews. The responses were dis- his article by congratulating the “new and fresh couragingly negative, although the newspapers group” (molodoie obshchestvo) on organising its that published them ranged from conservative to first exhibition so promptly, a “mere two months fairly progressive. Analysis of the major points of since its first general assembly”.18 He then reported criticism expressed by the reviewers might help that “the size of the collection subjected to public one to see the major difficulties with which the judgement is very modest. In a few small rooms Union was forced to contend. It can also evince hang 370 pieces, among which there are no large some conflicting attitudes lurking beneath the paintings at all.” This passage corroborates our surface of the increasingly gender-impartial artistic previous assumption about the exhibition’s limited environment of the time. space, which impacted on both the selection of works and quality of the display. Utro Rossii (Morning of Russia) published a very short article that at first glance seems purely Celebrated Cubo-Futurist poet Vladimir informative. The newspaper notified its readers Mayakovsky (1881-1944) in his review published that the Moscow Union of Women Painters had in the illustrated weekly newspaper Nov’ (Virgin opened the exhibition at a venue in Leontievskii soil) confessed that he held high expectations about Lane. This defines the fact that the apartment

16 Malevich o sebe., vol. 1, 62. 18 Anon., “Zhenskaia vystavka”, Russkie vedomosti . 17 Anon., Utro Rossii, 28 December 1914.

ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019) 118 W.A.S. (1870s-1970s)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

the event inaugurating a feminist newcomer to the This silence is particularly telling with regard to national art scene: Olga Rozanova (1886-1918), an ingenious and radical artist of the early Russian avant-garde, One hopes to relieve one’s boredom at least by visiting the exhibition of the Moscow Union of whom Mayakovsky knew very well and whose art Women Painters. After all, this is a young society, in he had always held in high regard. The exhibition addition to which there surely must be some Women Artists to Victims of War was the first brilliant outcome of feminism on such a scale.19 occasion when Rozanova, one of the leading figures Sadly, the exhibition did not live up to the poet’s in the Union of Youth art group and a bold illustrator of provocative Russian Cubo-Futurist optimistic forecast: books, exhibited her innovative designs for applied One walks around. There are some good paintings. art, based on her concurrent avant-garde expe- One consults the catalogue: Ilia Mashkov, Kazimir riments with abstract collages. It is rather difficult Malevich. But wait a moment, they are men! All the to identify precisely which pieces were actually rest comprises sweet little bunches of flowers in little golden frames. How sad if this is how displayed, for in the catalogue they are simply Amazonia flourishes indicated as “a bag”, “a collar”, “a cushion”, etc. The All made up of ladies! reproduction of one of Rozanova’s contemporary Why is there no important young art?20 creations chosen to illustrate this article may, in fact, not be the same work displayed in the Mayakovsky, however, could hardly be considered exhibition (Fig. 3). The style, though, must be the an unbiased viewer if we take into account the same, for judging by Rozanova’s artistic biography, belligerent avant-garde stance of the poet who she must have exhibited designs commissioned for urged the public to “throw Pushkin, Dostoevsky, the pioneering embroidery enterprise Verbovka, an Tolstoy, etc., etc. overboard from the Ship of art colony founded and managed by the artist Modernity.”21 He was, therefore, unlikely to appre- Natalia Davydova (1875-1933). Just a year later, in ciate conventional artistic styles which appear to 1915 stylistically related works by other women have prevailed in the exhibition’s display. Ilia avant-garde artists for Verbovka embroideries Mashkov and Kazimir Malevich were the only (Fig. 4) would receive accolades from the critics names which Mayakovsky cared to mention in his on the occasion of the Exhibition of Contemporary review. Interestingly, at that precise time both Decorative Art at the Lemers’e Gallery in Moscow.22 artists together with Mayakovsky were actively Mayakovsky’s silence about Rozanova, which engaged in the activities of the patriotic seems puzzlingly opportunistic, makes sense if Segondiashnii Lubok (Contemporary Lubok) enter- we consider that he was essentially following the prise, which was producing vividly coloured same stereotyped pattern already offered by many satirical cartoons, mocking German, Austrian and other contemporary commentators, that is, juxta- Turkish troops and extolling the heroism of the posing good art made by men with mediocre Russian army. Mayakovsky seems to have seized bricolage produced by women. Giving a positive his chance to promote his close associates, imply- evaluation to even one female participant within ing that their masculine art was a standout in the this context would have spoiled his whole otherwise feeble and saccharine works made by narrative. women. To make this contrast particularly sharp, he did not care to mention any avant-garde women artists whose pieces were also part of the display.

19 Mayakovsky, Nov’, 29 December 1914. 22 The Exhibition of Contemporary Decorative Art: Embroidery and Carpets Designed by 20 Mayakovsky in his review quotes two lines from the poem by Igor Severianin, Artists ran from 6 November to 1914 to 8 December 1915. It featured embroidered Protsvet Amazonii (Flourishing Dawn of Amazonia), 1913. items from the two arts and crafts colonies of Verbovka and Skoptzy together with 21 David Burliuk, Alexey Kruchenykh, Vladimir Maykovsky, Velimir Khlebnikov, A Slap embroidery designs produced for the same colonies by avant-garde artists Kseniia in the Face of Public Taste (Moscow: Geleia, 1912), 3. Boguslavskaia (1892-1972), Ekaterina Vasilieva (1884-1957), Natalia Davydova (1875-1933), Kasimir Malevich, Aleksandra Ekster (1882-1949) and others.

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s) 119 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

Figure 3. Olga Rozanova, Design for a bag, ca. 1914-1917, 19.2 × 13.3 cm, watercolour and pencil on paper. Private collection, Moscow.

The analysis of the press gives one the feeling missed the mark. This aforementioned anonymous that the exhibition in general was, indeed, lacking reviewer from Russkie Vedomosti was also the true inspiration. In addition to having several only correspondent who reported any female logistical problems, the Union neither offered a names at all. According to him: “Prominent women compelling aesthetic programme, nor did it put on artists who showed their works included Villiam, display a sufficient number of remarkable or, at Gol’dinger, Riuss and Shanks”.24 That was, indeed, a least, provocative works of art. The only stirring rather short list, hardly able to attract big crowds. moments seem to have been caused by Malevich’s His article ended by suggesting possible reasons of paintings, if we are to believe the artist’s version of the exhibition’s lack of success: events reported in one of his letters to Matiushin: It appears that “women among themselves” are less “Their exhibition opened, and the public started impressive when compared with the same women to gather in front of my works and, headed by artists taking part in joint exhibitions. This can be newspapers’ scribblers, to criticize [them] explained, perhaps, by the fact that the most loudly”.23 accomplished and talented of them obviously have bigger names. And the ones who have well-known While none of the “newspapers’ scribblers” ever names and prominent places in the large exhibitions referred to such episodes in their reports, one critic are reluctant to send their best works not to the offered his explanation as to why the first Union of Russian Artists or to the Association of the exhibition of the Moscow Union of Women Painters

23 Malevich, Malevich o sebe. vol. 1, 64. 24 Anon., Russkie vedomosti.

ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019) 120 W.A.S. (1870s-1970s)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

Figure 4. The Exhibition of Contemporary Decorative Art in Lemercier Gallery. Photograph by A. I. Savel’ev published in the illustrated magazine Iskri, 8 November 1915 (#45)

Travelling Exhibitions […], but to the a small, to the Victims of War. “Apparently—concluded the modest, and only just established exhibition. 25 reviewer—there are just not enough martyrs of the feminist idea in Russian society to produce a It was no accident that the commentator brought revolution even if only in the field of fine arts”.26 up into his narrative two of the most respected art groups of the time: the Association of the Travelling Exhibitions (founded in 1870) and the Union of Conclusion Russian Artists (founded in 1903). In fact, three out of four prominent artists he listed in his review Examination of the published responses to the were already members of these groups: Shanks was exhibition Women Artists to the Victims of War the first woman to become a full member of the allows us to make some reasonable assumptions Association of the Travelling Exhibitions (in 1891), about the issues concerning the Moscow Union of which preached realism, while Gol’dinger and Women Painters and, more generally, women’s Villiam were members of the Union of Russian participation in the Russian pre-revolutionary Artists. None of these female artists, according the arts. While no reviewer writing about the event author from Russikie Vedomosti, sent any of their actually questioned the right of women to be important works to the exhibition Women Artists professional artists, their texts revealed various degrees of deeply entrenched prejudices against

25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s) 121 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

women’s ability to produce great art. Denouncing motives. It seems nonetheless safe to conclude the first exhibition of the Moscow Union of Women that by 1914 the idea of joining a women-only Painters as mediocre and uninspiring, none of the art society held little appeal for the majority of authors offered an assessment of any of the female the female artists determined to carve out a solid works in particular. Moreover, all but one did not career. Despite the fact that they had to face up even bother to mention any woman artist at all. to persisting prejudices and challenges of achieving Such a generalised outlook created in the reader’s equal status within a profession largely dominated mind the impression that each and every piece by men, women artists seem to have preferred to on the exhibition’s display was uniformly dull be part of joint initiatives rather than confine them- (which did not seem to be the case). This kind of selves to gender segregation within a female group. criticism harked back to the perception of women This kind of attitude was particularly conspicuous as only capable to engage with art for mere social in the Russian avant-garde circles where the num- ‘accomplishment’. ber of women and level of their involvement with various projects was on a par with men. Having said that, one must also recognise that the Union shared responsibility for reinforcing such a damaging view because of the poor organisation of their first public event. The rented venue was not adapted to host an art exhibition and, more importantly, the selection policy lacked clear criteria due to the fact that the Union did not pursue any coherent aesthetic policy. This approach might have appeared convenient for artists struggling to find access to any other exhibition spaces, but it was unlikely to secure support from distinguished women artists, of whom only a small number decided to join in. Consequently, the eclectic display of the exhibition Women Artists to Victims of War, featuring works of mostly unknown artists of all kind of artistic styles, failed to impress a public spoiled for choice with many other exhibitions mounted in Moscow during the first wartime winter of 1914-1915. As a result, the attempt to establish a favourable public profile of the new art group fell flat. Instead of promoting female achievements in the field of arts, the Union came under harsh criticism, which was Figure 5. Title page of the catalogue Exhibition of painting and sculpture of the Moscow Union of Women Artists, 1916, Moscow. Library of the State Tretyakov Gallery, potentially frustrating for women’s professional Moscow. prestige.

This lamentable turn of events poses the question Epilogue of how sound was the idea of creating a separate female group at the time when women were The further history of the Moscow Union of Women already accepted into all influential art groups Painters remains for the most part unknown. The with access to important exhibition spaces. The aforementioned book The Golden Age of Art Unions absence of direct testimonies from people who set in Russia and the USSR indicates that it dis- up the Union makes it impossible to grasp their true integrated in 1915, only a year after its estab-

ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019) 122 W.A.S. (1870s-1970s)

Budanova – Women Artists to Victims of War

lishment. Yet, the Library of the Tretyakov Gallery holds the catalogues of the Union’s exhibitions related to later dates (Fig. 5). The group’s next exhibition of 1916, although slightly larger than the first, involved a lower number of distinguished contributors. It did not enlist the participation of Emilia Shanks, Elena Villiam, Rosa Riuss, Ekaterina Gol’dinger and Ol’ga Rozanova, who apparently lost interest in the Union’s initiatives. A few members of the Union also took part in the first and third exhibitions mounted in the historical town Segiev Posad by the Troitse-Sergiev Art Society in 1915 and 1916 respectively. The contemporary press ignored these events altogether. However, the Union seems to have still been active until the advent of the October Revolution, which totally reshaped Russian gender politics as well as the purpose and organisation of Russian arts.

***

Acknowledgments

This essay is an extended version of the paper the author presented at the symposium “WAS (Women Artists Shows-Salons-Societies)” organised by the research laboratory Artl@s École normale supérieure, PSL, Labex TransferS) and by AWARE, with the collaboration of Jeu de Paume in December 2017. The author also would like to express her gratitude to Z. P. Shergina, Director, and other members of the stuff of the Tretyakov Library, Moscow, for their support in locating primary sources for this research project.

W.A.S. (1870s-1970s) 123 ARTL@S BULLETIN, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (Spring 2019)